Why no “Break in” period?

3. What prevents whatever the breakin process is, to stop when the equipment sounds better? Why doesn't it continue to breakin for its entire life and continue to improve?

Can you step into the same river twice?
Can you listen to the same cable twice?

"Break-in" is a difficult thing to accept.  The word "aging" is more universally accepted.  

rodman

Note I said "But when PEOPLE leap to objective claims..."

I didn’t say you had made that explicit claim. Though millercarbon has made essentially that claim many times, continually insulting people who "can’t hear" the obvious sonic differences of various tweaks he tells us about.

But you seem to have conveniently forgotten the nature of your own posts in this thread, filled with invective against those of us voicing skepticism. There was indeed have a similar apparent point implicit in what you keep writing:

You’d claimed "ONLY experimentation(the heart of the Scientific Method), provides PROOF, regarding anything discussed. "

And that an example of this was just testing out devices in your system:

What you hold true, in your listening room, is all that matters. Experiment and trust your ears.

So, you are trusting your ears to tell you the truth.

Then you are moving from that to discredit anyone who raises any skeptical challenge to this method:

Anyone that discredits another’s abilities to hear improvements, in their own systems, in their own listening environments, with their own ears, should be considered condescending, insulting and/or(probably), simply projecting their own ineptitude. Perhaps, to be pitied.

In other words: someone skeptical of the conclusions you’ve drawn from your experience is at fault. And you’ve included all sorts of insults and invective against those of us skeptical about your claim.

So, really, yeah...you also seem to be an example of the problem I pointed to, where you have decided based on your "trusting your own ears" that what you hear is "true" and then you go on to cast aspersions at anyone who may doubt as being "rock-headed."
Why the dogma regarding subjective experience, where instead of admitting we can be wrong, you seem to promote first-hand subjective experience as "the only way to truth" about what is going on in an audio system?

Why is it *so hard* to admit you could be in error? That’s not the same as admitting you *are* in error. Just that it’s possible. We’re human right? Give it a whirl: It’s good for the soul. ;-)

How can prof post so fast with so many words in a long post?  Did he and his posts materialize out of thin air?  Is he in my living room with me?  

He uses a pseudo-skeptic’s random phrase generator as far as I can tell. If not, it’s a very big duplication of effort.

rodman99999-
"therefore my experience has verified the claim and anyone who doesn’t hear what I hear is at fault."???                                         PLEASE, point out any post, in which I’ve ever put forth such a proposition.    I’ve never had an agenda, on these pages, other than to encourage others in listening/experimenting for themselves.

Relax. He's out of his league. And boy does it ever show.